DataWorks MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a read operation ('获取'), implying it's non-destructive, but doesn't mention authentication needs, rate limits, pagination behavior (though parameters suggest it), or what the return format looks like. For a list tool with 7 parameters and no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, efficient sentence in Chinese that directly states the tool's purpose without any fluff. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse. Every word earns its place, and there's no wasted verbiage.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the complexity (7 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the return format (e.g., structure of the list, error handling), pagination behavior implied by parameters, or how filtering interacts. For a list tool with multiple filters and pagination, more context is needed to use it effectively, especially without annotations or output schema.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with all 7 parameters well-documented in Chinese. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain how filtering with 'CreatorId' or keywords works in practice). Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description '获取数据服务API的发布态信息列表' clearly states the action ('获取' - get/fetch) and resource ('数据服务API的发布态信息列表' - list of published data service APIs), which is specific. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'ListDataServiceApis' (which likely lists unpublished APIs) or 'GetDataServicePublishedApi' (which likely gets a single published API), leaving the differentiation unclear.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'ListDataServiceApis' or 'GetDataServicePublishedApi', nor does it specify prerequisites such as required authentication or project context. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and parameters alone.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.